Replies

1. 
   Kevin | Apr 10, 2007 09:00pm | #1

   I think you should go with your gut on this one. I can't see how staining Maple and then sanding it could possible negate blotching. That certainly is not a conventional approach to dealing with blotch-prone woods. If anything it would enhance blotching, IMO.

   What are you wanting the Maple to look like? I assume it's not figured? If it's figured then you don't want to negate "blotching" because whatever would negate the blotching would also work to de-emphasize the figure and that would be kind of pointless.

   Depending on your color of choice, Maple can blotch quite a bit. The darker the stain the more the blotchiness will be enhanced. So, getting quality advice here is largely going to depend on what look you are trying to achieve.

1. 
   Bouboubomber | Apr 10, 2007 09:35pm | #2

   Yeah I want to go pretty dark, actually, its mostly the wife who wants to go dark, sigh!

   will do a few tests on the back, mostly not figured maple, so it should make things easier

1. 
   Kevin | Apr 10, 2007 10:08pm | #3

   Depending on the color and how dark you want to go... Maple can be somewhat difficult to get really dark because it's so light colored and such dense wood. But you might try a gel stain with your shellac/dye idea.

   Personally I like to layer the colors when trying to darken a hard wood a lot. What I mean by that is to not rely on any one color step to give me 100% of the final color. Typically I try to get close with a wipe stain and then use dye to get the rest of the way there. Although sometimes I do it the other way and use the dye first, seal it in with a washcoat and then wipe stain over that.

   You say it has some figure. If you are wanting to emphasis what little figure there is then you might try your shellac/dye combo, let it dry good, sand it for adhesion and then use a gel stain as a sort of glaze over the top of the colored shellac and then topcoat over that with whatever your desire clear is. Or maybe reverse the order. It's amazing how alternating color layers can tweak the final look even though it's all the same materials in the end.

   A few tips which might help:

   Dyes are much more transparent than pigments because they're significantly smaller particals.

   Pigmented stains over the top of a sealer, rather than wiped into the wood itself, tend to obscure the wood more than if they're used directly on the raw wood. Sometimes that's good... sometimes it's bad. It all depends on the look you're after.

1. 
   colebearanimals | Apr 10, 2007 11:00pm | #5

   Hi Boubou,

           Kevin's right in my experience. Maple is very blotchy when stained. Use an aniline dye. This will get it dark easily. It's available in a variety of colors from Woodworkers Supply.

                     Paul

2. 
   PeteBradley | Apr 10, 2007 10:54pm | #4

   I've had problems with uneven staining using pigmented stains on maple. Shellac is very reliable and can add color, either by being a dark-colored shellac or by adding an appropriate dye. I think shellac looks the best on maple, but it has limited water resistance,limited heat resistance, and no alcohol resistance. The water and alcohol issues can be overcome by topcoating with varnish (I like Arm R Seal wiping varnish for this).

   I've also had some luck with non-grain-raising dyes like Solar-Lux.

   Whatever you do, test out the entire finishing system on scrap before committing anything to the final piece.

   Pete

3. 
   Tom7 | Apr 11, 2007 01:23am | #6

   I work with maple all the time and have tried just about every technique I could find.  Here is what works for me to eliminate blotching.

   Technique #1 - Get Transtint liquid dye stains at http://www.homesteadfinishing.com and dilute them 0.5 ounces per 32 ounces of water.  Spray the stain in light layers to get uniform coverage and no drips.  Do not wipe at all as wiping will cause blotching.  I spray additional coats almost immediately until I build up the color I want.  Allow to dry overnight.  Apply 1.0 # cut extra pale shellac or spray on lacquer or vinyl sealer if topcoating with lacquer.  Lightly sand with 400 or 600 grit sandpaper after the sealer to remove the raised grain.  For added color, use a solvent base glaze such as Behlens van dyke brown or use any Bartley's gel stain as a glaze for more color range.  Apply sealer after the glaze has dried overnight then scuff sand lightly then topcoats.  This will provide the deepest color and lots of color control with no noticeable blotching.

   Technique #2 - Apply 1.0 # cut shellac to bare wood as a sealer.  Use extra pale for minimal color or dark or garnet for some color.  You could also add a bit of transtint liquid to the shellac for color.  Scuff sand with 400 or 600 grit.  Apply the glaze, more sealer and topcoats as above.  There will be minimal blotching but more than from technique #1.  It will also not yield as dark a color as the shellac blocks some color retention.

   Jeff Jewitt is a wealth of knowledge on the Homestead Finishing site.

    

4. 
   user-83153 | Apr 11, 2007 01:42am | #7

   I agree with Tom7 for the most part. I would add that you should only attempt to use dye mixed with shellac if you are spraying it. Otherwise you trade blotching for streaking. Also go here http://www.joewoodworker.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=42&osCsid=fde211ca244c51b67a70806e74196ab0  for trans-tint about $3 cheaper than Homestead Finishing. Of course if you are going to ask Jeff Jewitt for advice (he is very helpful, and answers your questions personally on his forum), you should buy your products from him.

      BTW what do you have against water soluble dyes?

                           Rob

1. 
   Bouboubomber | Apr 11, 2007 01:49am | #8

   Havent had much success with water stains, also i assume it will raise the grain, which involves sanding, and i will try to finish with a smooting plane to avoid sanding, sanding for the stain defeats the purpose of the plane. Not equipped for spraying, but anyways thanx everyone, i guess i will have to do some tests, some water stains ( appearing to be mix of dyes and pigments) claim they do not raise the grain, any comments on that?

1. 
   user-83153 | Apr 11, 2007 01:57am | #9

   You could still use Tom7's methods. I like the first one best. Just don't add dye to the shellac.

     I don't see how any waterborne dye or finish isn't going to raise the grain when applied to bare wood.

                Rob

2. 
   user-83153 | Apr 11, 2007 02:06am | #10

   Also, for future reference you shouldn't sand the raised grain until you seal the dye in with shellac or whatever anyway. This locks in the little raised grain "hairs" and helps to avoid sanding through the dye.

   Now lets get ready for the firestorm, I don't think there is any visible difference in the finished piece whether you sand or plane it. Try a test and see what you think.

            Rob, (ducking for cover)  :-)

1. 
   Bouboubomber | Apr 11, 2007 03:54am | #11

   Yeah sanded or planed, not sure if there will be a difference, its just something i want to try, the main difference is planing is more silent and produces a lot less dust

2. 
   SteveSchoene | Apr 11, 2007 05:04am | #12

   It depends on how the planing is used.  I make reproduction furniture and I leave very subtle hollows from the planes so that when it is finished with a full filled finish it doesn't have that "underglass" excessive flatness that makes factory finished "reproductions" so worthless.  (I define worthless if you can tell from across the room which pieces in a room are of the period and which are factory made.)  Surfaces become flatter and flatter the later the period, so that by the end of hand made furniture in the first half of the 19th century surfaces are very near perfect, but still run your fingers lightly across the surface to a Hepplewhite table.  I'd bet that if it hasn't been butchered by excessive "restoration" that you will feel the undulations, even if you can only see them in the right light. 

   So, for me, it's not the micro aspects of sanded versus planed, there I would agree that under a film finish there will be darned little difference, perhaps none under a true double blind test.  But over the entire surface there sure is a visible difference.  The dips and rises of badly done random orbital sanding don't add to the character in the same way that the slight hollows of hand planed surfaces.  It's probably not economic to do except for the most sophisticated customers, who have high quality period pieces that will sit in the same rooms but the difference is there. 

   (I know--hand made furniture has never really ended, but it has moved out the mainstream into the galleries.)